Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago, IL
March 26, 2007

One of the biggest flaws of modern democracy is the skyrocketing cost of getting elected, particularly to Congress. The huge expense distorts the process in many ways: It forces candidates to spend more and more of their time raising money and eliminates candidates unable or unwilling to do that. It raises the influence of special interests with deep pockets, and creates at the very least the perception -- and in some notorious recent cases, the reality -- that votes are for sale.

Fortunately, there is a solution to the problem, and while it's not a perfect one, it's far better than the system we have now. Last week, Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced "Fair Elections" legislation that would give Senate candidates the option of being publicly funded. A companion bill is pending for House candidates. The idea, modeled after systems in place in a handful of states, is to change the process so candidates "run on the quality of their ideas, not the size of their war chests," according to Public Campaign, an organization that has been pushing such laws.

Here's how it would work: Candidates who want to be publicly funded would first have to follow certain guidelines for raising enough money from private donors to get their campaign off the ground -- only individual donations of up to $100. They would also have to raise $5 each from a minimum number of residents. That threshold, which in Illinois would be 11,000 for the Senate and 1,500 for the House, attempts to make sure only viable candidates are tapping into the taxpayer pool. It addresses one of our fears about the proposal -- that public dollars would go to fringe candidates whose extreme views would otherwise prevent them from raising private dollars and mounting a serious campaign.

Once qualified for public funding, a candidate would receive a base amount, also determined by a state's population but taking into account such factors as the cost of advertising in the state. They would not be allowed to raise any more money from private sources. However, if they are being outspent by someone who is using private funding, they could have their base amount increased by as much as 200 percent to ensure a fair fight.

The process would be used for primaries as well as general elections, and, as noted, it would be voluntary. Candidates would still be able to raise money the old-fashioned way, but they would run the risk of being perceived as beholden to those who paid the bills -- especially if they were running against a publicly financed opponent.

Yes, the proposal would cost us all some money. But if we got a Congress that is more responsive to the voters, less busy chasing dollars and less reliant on special interests, the cost would be worth it.